I'm almost like a crazy evangelical. I've always known that the age of design is upon us, almost like a rapture. If the day is sunny, I think, "Oh, the gods have had a good design day." Or, I go to a show and I see a beautiful piece by an artist, particularly beautiful, I say he's so good because he clearly looked to design to understand what he needed to do.
我几乎像一个疯狂的福音派信徒, 一直深信设计时代来临, 几乎像狂喜一般。 如果晴天,我就会想, “哦,众神设计日快乐。” 如果我去看展览,看到一件艺术家展示的精美作品, 特别的漂亮,我就会说, 他如此优秀是因为他清楚地希望设计ˎ 理解他需要做什么。
So I really do believe that design is the highest form of creative expression. That's why I'm talking to you today about the age of design, and the age of design is the age in which design is still cute furniture, is still posters, is still fast cars, what you see at MoMA today. But in truth, what I really would like to explain to the public and to the audiences of MoMA is that the most interesting chairs are the ones that are actually made by a robot, like this beautiful chair by Dirk Vander Kooij, where a robot deposits a toothpaste-like slur of recycled refrigerator parts, as if he were a big candy, and makes a chair out of it. Or good design is digital fonts that we use all the time and that become part of our identity. I want people to understand that design is so much more than cute chairs, that it is first and foremost everything that is around us in our life.
因此我真确实相信, 设计是创造性表达的最高形式。 这就是为什么今天我和你们谈论设计时代。 设计时代是这样的, 其设计仍然是可爱的家具ˎ海报 和快车,就是你们今天在现代艺术博物馆(MoMa)看到的东西。 但事实上,我确实想要向公众, 向现代艺术博物馆的听众解释的是 这些最有意思的椅子 实际上是由机器人制造的。 比如说这张漂亮的椅子是Dirk Vander Kooij设计的。 机器人将回收的冰箱部件上的牙膏状污物 储存在那里, 仿佛是一粒大糖果,然后造出了一把椅子。 好的设计就像我们一直使用的数字字体一样, 成为我们身份的一部分。 我想让人们理解 设计远远不止是可爱的椅子。 设计是我们生活中 周围首要的一切。
And it's interesting how so much of what we're talking about tonight is not simply design but interaction design. And in fact, interaction design is what I've been trying to insert in the collection of the Museum of Modern Art for a few years, starting not very timidly but just pointedly with works, for instance, by Martin Wattenberg -- the way a machine plays chess with itself, that you see here, or Lisa Strausfeld and her partners, the Sugar interface for One Laptop Per Child, Toshio Iwai's Tenori-On musical instruments, and Philip Worthington's Shadow Monsters, and John Maeda's Reactive Books, and also Jonathan Harris and Sep Kamvar's I Want You To Want Me. These were some of the first acquisitions that really introduced the idea of interaction design to the public.
有趣的是, 我们今晚谈论的不是简单的设计,而是交互设计。 实际上,几年来我一直在努力尝试把交互设计 引入到现代艺术博物馆的收藏品中。 开始时并不很胆怯, 但是只针对作品,例如, 由Martin Wattenberg设计的一个机器人自己下棋的方式, 你这里看到的。 或者是Lisa Strausfeld和她的同伴设计的Sugar界面 用于儿童笔记本电脑。 Toshio Iwai设计的酷炫电子乐器, Philip Worthington设计的«Shadow Monsters», John Maeda的«Reactive Books», 还有Jonathan Harris和Sep Kamvar合作的«I Want You To Want Me»。 这些是部分最先收购的设计品, 它们确实把交互设计的理念带给了大众。
But more recently, I've been trying really to go even deeper into interaction design with examples that are emotionally really suggestive and that really explain interaction design at a level that is almost undeniable. The Wind Map, by Wattenberg and Fernanda Viégas, I don't know if you've ever seen it -- it's really fantastic. It looks at the territory of the United States as if it were a wheat field that is procured by the winds and that is really giving you a pictorial image of what's going on with the winds in the United States.
但最近,我一直在尝试真正 用实例更加深入交互设计, 这些实例在感情上真的暗示, 在一定的水平上真正解释了交互设计。 这几乎是无可否认的。 Wattenberg和Fernanda Viégas制作的«实时风地图», 我不知道你们是否曾经见过,确实非常的奇妙。 这地图是根据美国版图做的。 仿佛它又像被风吹拂的小麦田。 不过它确实展现给你一幅图案形象, 关于美国的风正在吹向哪里。
But also, more recently, we started acquiring video games, and that's where all hell broke loose in a really interesting way. (Laughter) There are still people that believe that there's a high and there's a low. And that's really what I find so intriguing about the reactions that we've had to the anointment of video games in the MoMA collection. We've -- No, first of all, New York Magazine always gets it. I love them. So we are in the right quadrant. We are in the Highbrow -- that's daring, that's courageous -- and Brilliant, which is great. Timidly, we've been higher on the diagonal in other situations, but it's okay. It's good. It's good. It's good. (Laughter)
另外近来我们开始收购一些电子游戏, 至此全乱套了, 以一种非常有趣的方式乱了。(笑声) 仍然有人确信有高雅有低俗, 这真的是令我感到有趣的地方, 对于在现代艺术博物馆收藏品中 收购的电子游戏的反应。 我们,不,首先,纽约杂志总是最先得到。 我爱他们。所以我们是在右边的象限。 我们是知识分子,有胆量,有勇气, 并且有智慧,这相当的棒。 缺乏自信地说,我们在其它情况下的对角线上的位置也更高。 但是没关系。这很好,很好,很好。(笑声)
But here comes the art critic. Oh, that was fantastic.
但是接着出现了艺术评论家。噢,那是奇妙的。
So the first was Jonathan Jones from The Guardian. "Sorry, MoMA, video games are not art." Did I ever say they were art? I was talking about interaction design. Excuse me. "Exhibiting Pac-Man and Tetris alongside Picasso and Van Gogh" -- They're two floors away. (Laughter) — "will mean game over for any real understanding of art." I'm bringing in the end of the world. You know? We were talking about the rapture? It's coming. And Jonathan Jones is making it happen.
首先是来自«卫报»的Jonathan Jones。 “抱歉,现代艺术博物馆,电子游戏不是艺术。” 对不起,我说过它们是艺术吗?我在谈论交互设计。 “在Picasso和Van Gogh的作品旁边展示Pac-Man和俄罗斯方块游戏” 他们相隔有两层楼远。(笑声) “将意味着游戏结束就会对艺术有任何真正理解。” 我将带来世界的尽头,你们知道吗? 我们正在谈论狂喜是吧?它就要来了。 Jonathan Jones正在使其发生。
So the same Guardian rebuts, "Are video games art: the debate that shouldn't be. Last week, Guardian art critic blah blah suggested that games cannot qualify as art. But is he right? And does it matter?" Thank you. Does it matter?
同样的«卫报»反驳说, “电子游戏是艺术吗?不该有的辩论。” 上周,«卫报»艺术评论家的瞎说表明 游戏不可能有艺术资格。但他对吗? 这重要吗?谢谢。重要吗?
You know, it's like once again there's this whole problem of design being often misunderstood for art, or the idea that is so diffuse that designers want to aspire to, would like to be called, artists. No. Designers aspire to be really great designers. Thank you very much. And that's more than enough.
你们知道,就像再次有这样的设计的整体问题, 即设计经常会被误解为艺术, 或者普遍流传着这种观点, 设计师想要ˎ渴望ˎ喜欢被人叫做艺术家。 不。设计师渴望成为真正伟大的设计师。 非常感谢。这就足够了。
So my knight in shining armor, John Maeda, without any prompt, came out with this big declaration on why video games belong in the MoMA. And that was fantastic. And I thought that was it.
因此我的白马王子,John Maeda, 没有任何的提示,发出了这个大宣言, 为什么电子游戏属于现代艺术博物馆。 这是极了不起的。至少我是这么认为的。
But then there was another wonderfully pretentious article that came out in The New Republic, so pretentious, by Liel Leibovitz, and it said, "MoMA has mistaken video games for art." Again. "The museum is putting Pac-Man alongside Picasso." Again. "That misses the point." Excuse me. You're missing the point. And here, look, the above question is put bluntly: "Are video games art? No. Video games aren't art because they are quite thoroughly something else: code." Oh, so Picasso is not art because it's oil paint. Right?
不过又有另一篇极其自命不凡的文章, 刊登在«新共和杂志»上,真的非常自命不凡。 是Liel Leibovitz写的,文章说,“现代艺术博物馆居然把电子游戏误以为是艺术”,再一次出现否定的声音。 “博物馆正在把«小精灵»置于Picasso旁边”,又一次如是说。 “这样忽略了重点。” 抱歉,你们正在忽略重点内容。 这儿,看,上述问题被直截了当地提出来了: “电子游戏是艺术吗?不,电子游戏不是艺术, 因为它们是相当彻底的别的东西:代码。” 噢,所以Picasso不是艺术因为它是油漆,对吗?
So it's so fantastic to see how these feathers that were ruffled, and these reactions, were so vehement. And you know what? The International Cat Video Film Festival didn't have that much of a reaction. (Laughter) I think this was truly fantastic. We were talking about dancing ponies, but I was really jealous of the Walker Arts Center for putting up this festival, because it's very, very wonderful. And there's this Flaubert quote that I love: "I have always tried to live in an ivory tower, but a tide of shit is beating at its walls, threatening to undermine it." I consider myself the tide of shit.
因此如此美妙地看到 这些羽毛是如何被激惹起来, 这些反应是多么的激烈。 你知道吗? 国际猫的视频电影节 并没有引起如此多的反应。(笑声) 我认为这是十分棒的。 我们谈论跳舞的小马, 但我真的很嫉妒沃克艺术中心支持设置这个节日, 因为它真的非常非常精彩。 引用一句我所钟爱的Flaubert的话, “我一直尝试着住在一座象牙塔里, 但是一股胡说八道的言论在敲打它的墙壁, 威胁着要破坏它。” 我认为我自己就是那一股胡说八道的言论。
(Laughter) (Applause)
(笑声)(掌声)
You know, we have to go through that. Even in the 1930s, my colleagues that were trying to put together an abstract art show had all of these works stopped by the customs officers that decided they were not art. So it's happened before, and it will happen in the future, but right now I can tell you that I am so, so proud to be able to call Pac-Man part of the MoMA collection. And the same with, for instance, Tetris, original version, the Soviet one. And you know, the amount of work -- yeah, Alexey Pajitnov was working for the Soviet government and that's how he developed Tetris, and Alexey himself reconstructed the whole game and even gave us a simulation of the cathode ray tube that makes it look slightly bombed. And it's fantastic.
你们知道,我们必须穿越它。 即使在十九世纪30年代,我的同行们 准备举办一个抽象艺术展,把这些类型的作品都汇集起来, 但是被海关工作人员阻止了, 这些人决定着这些作品不是艺术。 这样的事情在以前发生过,在将来还会发生, 但是现在,我能告诉你们我是如此地骄傲, 能把«小精灵»称为现代艺术博物馆藏品的一部分。 同样地,例如,«俄罗斯方块»,苏联的原始版本 你们知道,这个工作量… 好吧,Alexey Pajitnov那时正为苏联政府工作, 这也是他如何开发了«俄罗斯方块»。 Alexey自己又重建了整个游戏, 甚至给了我们一个模拟的阴极射线管, 使它看上去有点像遭轰炸的。 这是多么令人惊叹啊。
So behind these acquisitions is an enormous amount of work, because we're still the Museum of Modern Art, so even when we tackle popular culture, we tackle it as a form of interaction design and as something that has to go into the collection at MoMA, therefore, has to be researched. So to get to choosing Eric Chahi's wonderful Another World, amongst others, we put together a panel of experts, and we worked on this acquisition, and it's mostly myself and Kate Carmody and Paul Galloway. We worked on it for a year and a half. So many people helped us — designers of games, you might know Jamin Warren and his collaborators at Kill Screen magazine, and you know, Kevin Slavin. You name it. We bugged everybody, because we knew that we were ignorant. We were not real gamers enough, so we had to really talk to them. And so we decided, of course, to have Sim City 2000, not the other Sim City, that one in particular, so the criteria that we developed along the way were really strong, and were not only criteria of selection. They were also criteria of exhibition and of preservation. That's what makes this acquisition more than a little game or a little joke. It's truly a way to think of how to preserve and show artifacts that will more and more become part of our lives in the future. We live today, as you know very well, not in the digital, not in the physical, but in the kind of minestrone that our mind makes of the two.
在这些收购品的背后是无比巨大的工作量, 因为我们仍然是现代艺术博物馆, 所以纵使我们正视通俗文化, 我们视它为交互设计的一种形式, 现代艺术博物馆必须收藏的藏品。 因此,它必须被研究。 让我们从众多电子游戏中, 选择Eric Chahi的美好的«另一个世界»来看, 我们组织了一个专家小组, 为这个收购而努力, 主要是我自己、Kate Carmody和Paul Galloway 为此我们工作了一年半, 有很多人帮助了我们,游戏的设计师们, 你们可能知道Jamin Warren, 和他的«Kill Screen»杂志的合作者们。 你知道,还有Kevin Slavin,只要你能想到的, 我们烦扰了每一个人,因为我们了解自己是多么无知。 我们还不足以是真正的游戏玩家, 所以我们必须真正与他们交谈。 所以我们决定拥有«模拟城市2000», 当然不是其它版本的«模拟城市»,尤其是那一版, 在我们发展的道路上建立起来的标准十分强大。 而且不单是选拔标准, 还包括展示和保存的标准。 这也使得这个收购超越了一个小小的游戏, 或开个小玩笑,这真的是一种思路考虑如何保存 和展示文物, 这些东西将越来越成为我们未来生活的一部分。 我们生活在当下,正如你很清楚的那样,不是在数字中, 也不是在物质中,而是在那种通心粉里。 我们的思想中融合了这两种。
And that's really where interaction lies, and that's the importance of interaction. And in order to explain interaction, we need to really bring people in and make them realize how interaction is part of their lives. So when I talk about it, I don't talk only about video games, which are in a way the purest form of interaction, unadulterated by any kind of function or finality. I also talk about the MetroCard vending machine, which I consider a masterpiece of interaction. I mean, that interface is beautiful. It looks like a burly MTA guy coming out of the tunnel. You know, with your mitt you can actually paw the MetroCard, and I talk about how bad ATM machines usually are. So I let people understand that it's up to them to know how to judge interaction so as to know when it's good or when it's bad. So when I show The Sims, I try to make people really feel what it meant to have an interaction with The Sims, not only the fun but also the responsibility that came with the Tamagotchi.
这确实是交互作用之所在, 是交互作用的重要性。 为了解释交互作用, 我们确实需要把人们带进, 并且让他们意识到交互作用如何组成了他们生活中的一部分。 当我谈论它的时候,我不会只说电子游戏, 某种程度上它们是交互作用最纯粹的形式, 不掺杂某种功能或结果。 我还会讲捷运卡自动售货机, 我认为它是交互作用的杰作。 我的意思是,它的界面是很漂亮的。 它看上去像一个魁梧的地铁男走出隧道。 你们知道,带着手套你依然可以笨拙去拿捷运卡。 我想说 自动柜员机通常是多么的差劲。 所以我想让人们明白, 由他们自己决定该如何评判交互作用, 以便知道何时好何时坏。 当我展出«模拟人生»时, 我努力想让人们真正地感受到, 与«模拟人生»交互到底意味着什么, 除了乐趣还有责任, 这也是«电子鸡»所带给我们的。
You know, video games can be truly deep even when they're completely mindless. I'm sure that all of you know Katamari Damacy. It's about rolling a ball and picking up as many objects as you can in a finite amount of time and hopefully you'll be able to make it into a planet. I've never made it into a planet, but that's it. Or, you know, Vib-Ribbon was not distributed here in the United States. It was a PlayStation game, but mostly for Japan. And it was one of the first video games in which you could choose your own music. So you would put into the PlayStation, you would put your own CD, and then the game would change alongside your music. So really fantastic.
你们知道,电子游戏可以非常地深入, 甚至当它们完全盲目时。 我确信在座的各位都知道«块魂», 它是一种在有限的时间里滚动一个球, 并抓住尽量多的物品的游戏, 希望你将能使它成为一个星球。 我从没使它成为一个星球,但仅此而已。 你们知道,«线条兔»并没有在美国发行, 它是一个PS游戏,但主要是在日本。 它是最早的电子游戏之一, 游戏里你可以选用自己的音乐, 你可以在PS机里 放你自己的CD, 然后游戏就会随着你的音乐而改变。所以真是奇妙。
Not to mention Eve Online. Eve Online is an artificial universe, if you wish, but one of the diplomats that was killed in Benghazi, not Ambassador Stevens, but one of his collaborators, was a really big shot in Eve Online, so here you have a diplomat in the real world that spends his time in Eve Online to kind of test, maybe, all of his ideas about diplomacy and about universe-building, and to the point that the first announcement of the bombing was actually given on Eve Online, and after his death, several parts of the universe were named after him. And I was just recently at the Eve Online fan festival in Reykjavík that was quite amazing. I mean, we're talking about an experience that of course can seem weird to many, but that is very educational. Of course, there are games that are even more educational.
更不用说«星战前夜»了。 如果你想的话,«星战前夜»是一个人造宇宙, 一位外交官在Benghazi被害, 不是Ambassador Stevens,而是他的合作者之一, 在«星战前夜»里真是个大人物。 所以这里在现实世界中你有一个外交官, 他把自己的时间都花在玩«星战前夜»这个游戏上, 可能有点考验他所有的想法关于外交ˎ 宇宙建设,到如此地步, 第一次宣布轰炸 实际上是在«星战前夜»发出的。 在他死后, 宇宙的几部分将以他的名字命名。 我最近去了Reykjavík参加了«星战前夜»迷们的聚会, 相当的令人惊叹。 我指,我们谈起某一次体验, 当然在许多人看来可能会是怪异的, 但它是极有教育意义的。 当然,有更加有教育意义的游戏。
Dwarf Fortress is like the holy grail of this kind of massive multiplayer online game, and in fact the two Adams brothers were in Reykjavík, and they were greeted by a standing ovation by all the Eve Online fans. It was amazing to see. And it's a beautiful game. So you start seeing here that the aesthetics that are so important to a museum collection like MoMA's are kept alive also by the selection of these games.
«矮人要塞»就像这种 大型多人在线游戏的圣杯。 事实上,Adams俩兄弟也在Reykjavík, 迎接他们的是 全场«星战前夜»迷们的起立鼓掌。 看上去相当的神奇,其本身就是一个漂亮的游戏。 你可以从这儿看起, 对于像现代艺术博物馆这样的博物馆藏品来说, 美学是十分重要的。 选择这些游戏使美学依然有其影响。
And you know, Valve -- you know, Portal -- is an example of a video game in which you have a certain type of violence which also leads me to talk about one of the biggest issues that we had to discuss when we acquired the video games, what to do with violence. Right? We had to make decisions. At MoMA, interestingly, there's a lot of violence depicted in the art part of the collection, but when I came to MoMA 19 years ago, and as an Italian, I said, "You know what, we need a Beretta." And I was told, "No. No guns in the design collection." And I was like, "Why?" Interestingly, I learned that it's considered that in design and in the design collection, what you see is what you get. So when you see a gun, it's an instrument for killing in the design collection. If it's in the art collection, it might be a critique of the killing instrument. So it's very interesting. But we are acquiring our critical dimension also in design, so maybe one day we'll be able to acquire also the guns. But here, in this particular case, we decided, you know, with Kate and Paul, that we would have no gratuitous violence. So we have Portal because you shoot walls in order to create new spaces. We have Street Fighter II, because martial arts are good. (Laughter) But we don't have GTA because, maybe it's my own reflection, I've never been able to do anything but crashing cars and shooting prostitutes and pimps. So it was not very constructive. (Laughter) So, I'm making fun of it, but we discussed this for so many days. You have no idea. And to this day, I am ambivalent, but when you have instead games like Flow, there's no doubt. It's like, it's about serenity and it's about sublime. It's about experiencing what it means to be a sea creature. Then we have a few also side-scrollers -- classical ones. So it's quite a hefty collection.
你们知道,Valve开发的«传送门», 是电子游戏的一个例子。 在游戏里你有某种暴力行为, 这也导致我谈谈 我们一定要讨论的其中一个最大的问题, 当我们收购电子游戏时,该如何对待暴力呢? 是吧?我们必须做出一个决定。 有趣的是,在现代艺术博物馆, 艺术部分的藏品描绘了许多暴力。 但是当我19年前来到现代艺术博物馆的时候,作为一个意大利人, 我说,“你知道,我们需要一个枪支制造商。” 有人对我说,“不,设计收藏中没有枪支。” 我就问,“为什么?” 有趣的是,我才知道需要考虑 在设计和设计收藏品中, 你看到的就是你得到的。 当你看到一把枪的时候,它是一个设计收藏品中的杀人工具。 如果它在艺术收集品中, 它可能是批判杀人工具。 因此这是非常有趣的。 但是我们也从设计中得到批判性的视角, 因此可能有一天,我们也将会收购手枪。 但是这里,在此个别情况下,我们 和Kate 与Paul决定, 我们将摒弃无端的暴力。 所以我们收藏了«传送门»,因为你们向墙壁射击 是为了创造新的空间。 我们收藏了«街头霸王 II»,因为武术是好的。 (笑声) 但我们没有收藏«侠盗猎车手»,因为, 可能是我自己的反思, 我从不会做任何事情除了撞毁汽车, 枪击妓女及皮条客们。 所以它并不是非常有建设性的。(笑声) 好吧,我在嘲笑它,但是我们讨论这件事 有许多天了。你一点主意也没有。 至今我仍然在矛盾着。 但是当你有替代的游戏像«浮游世界»,当然毫无疑问。 它有点像是关于宁静和崇高的。 它是关于体验变成海洋生物意味着什么。 我们也有少量像«横向卷轴»等的经典游戏。 这的确是一个巨大的收藏。
And right now, we started with the first 14, but we have several that are coming up, and the reason why we haven't acquired them yet is because you don't acquire just the game. You acquire the relationship with the company. What we want, what we aspire to, is the code. It's very hard to get, of course. But that's what would enable us to preserve the video games for a really long time, and that's what museums do. They also preserve artifacts for posterity. In absence of the code, because, you know, video game companies are not very forthcoming in some cases, in absence of that, we acquire the relationship with the company. We're going to stay with them forever. They're not going to get rid of us. And one day, we'll get that code. (Laughter)
现在,让我们从最初的14个开始, 我们还有数个即将收购的游戏, 为什么我们还没有收购它们呢? 因为你不会只收购游戏, 你还收购与公司之间的关系。 我们想要,渴望得到的是代码。 当然,这是很难得到的。 不过这也使我们能够 >在一段很长的时间里保存游戏。 这也是博物馆所做的。 当然他们也为后人保存文物。 因为,你们知道,如果没有代码, 电子游戏公司在某些情况下不是很愿意, 在没有代码的情况下,我们收购与公司的关系。 我们将永远和它们在一起, 他们不会摆脱我们。 总有一天,我们会得到那个代码。(笑声)
But I want to explain to you the criteria that we chose for interaction design. Aesthetics are really important. And I'm showing you Core War here, which is an early game that takes advantage aesthetically of the limitations of the processor. So the kind of interferences that you see here that look like beautiful barriers in the game are actually a consequence of the processor's limitedness, which is fantastic. So aesthetics is always important.
但是我想向你们解释我们选择交互设计的准则, 美学是非常重要的。 在这儿我想向你们展示«磁芯大战», 它是一种早期的游戏, 从美学上利用处理器的局限性。 你在这里看到的这种干扰, 看起来像游戏中的美丽屏障, 事实上是处理器局限性的后果, 真是很奇妙。所以美学始终是非常重要的。
And so is space, the spatial aspect of games. You know, I feel that the best video games are the ones that have really savvy architects that are behind them, and if they're not architects, bona fide trained in architecture, they have that feeling. But the spatial evolution in video games is extremely important.
游戏的空间方面也是如此。 我觉得最好的电子游戏是那些 在幕后由真正资深的设计师制作的。 如果他们不是受过良好训练的架构师, 他们就不会有这种感觉。 但空间演变在电子游戏中是极其重要的。
Time. The way we experience time in video games, as in other forms of interaction design, is really quite amazing. It can be real time or it can be the time within the game, as is in Animal Crossing, where seasons follow each other at their own pace.
时间,我们在电子游戏中度过时间的方式, 像在其它形式的交互设计中一样, 确实是令人惊叹的。 它可以是真实的时间,也可以是游戏中的时间。 例如在«动物之森»中, 季节以各自的节奏更替。
So time, space, aesthetics, and then, most important, behavior. The real core issue of interaction design is behavior. Designers that deal with interaction design behaviors that go to influence the rest of our lives. They're not just limited to our interaction with the screen. In this case, I'm showing you Marble Madness, which is a beautiful game in which the controller is a big sphere that vibrates with you, so you have a sphere that's moving in this landscape, and the sphere, the controller itself, gives you a sense of the movement. In a way, you can see how video games are the purest aspect of interaction design and are very useful to explain what interaction is.
所以时间ˎ空间ˎ美学, 然后,最重要的行为。 交互设计的真正的核心问题是行为。 设计师们处理交互设计行为。 这些行为去影响我们生活的其它部分。 它们并不局限于我们与屏幕的互动。 在这个例子中,我将给你们展示«疯狂石头»。 这是一个美丽的游戏。 控制者是一个大球体和你一起颤动, 所以在这种风景下你有一个运动的球体。 这个球体,控制者本身,给了你运动的感觉。 某种程度上,你可以看到电子游戏 怎样是最纯净的交互设计方面, 以及在解释交互设计是什么时是如此的有用。
We don't want to show the video games with the paraphernalia. No arcade nostalgia. If anything, we want to show the code, and here you see Ben Fry's distellamap of Pac-Man, of the Pac-Man code.
我们不想使用一些设备来展示电子游戏, 没有怀旧街机游戏。 如果可以的话,我们想展示代码。 这里你看到Ben Fry的«小精灵»游戏的 操作代码与图形的混合。
So the way we acquired the games is very interesting and very unorthodox. You see them here displayed alongside other examples of design, furniture and other parts, but there's no paraphernalia, no nostalagia, only the screen and a little shelf with the controllers. The controllers are, of course, part of the experience, so you cannot do away with it. But interestingly, this choice was not condemned too vehemently by gamers. I was afraid that they would kill us, and instead they understood, especially when I told them that I was trying to apply the same stratagem that Philip Johnson applied in 1934 when he wanted to make people understand the importance of design, and he took propeller blades and pieces of machinery and in the MoMA galleries he put them on white pedestals against white walls, as if they were Brancusi sculptures. He created this strange distance, this shock, that made people realize how gorgeous formally, and also important functionally, design pieces were. I would like to do the same with video games. By getting rid of the sticky carpets and the cigarette butts and everything else that we might remember from our childhood, I want people to understand that those are important forms of design. And in a way, the video games, the fonts and everything else lead us to make people understand a wider meaning for design.
我们收购游戏的方式是十分有趣的, 也是极不寻常的。你看在这里, 它们陈列在其它设计样品的旁边, 家具和其他的部分, 但是这儿没有游戏设备,没有怀旧街机, 只有屏幕和带控制器的小架子。 当然,控制器是这种体验的一部分, 因而你不可以没有它。 有趣的是,这个选择并没有被游戏者们 太过强烈地谴责。 我以前曾担心他们会杀了我们, 相反,他们理解了我们, 特别是当我告诉他们我正尝试 应用Philip Johnson在1934年使用的相同的攻略。 他当时想让人们理解设计的重要性, 他采用了螺旋桨推进器, 一些机器的零件, 他把它们放在现代艺术博物馆走廊里的白色底座上, 紧靠着白色的墙壁,就好像它们是Brancusi的雕塑。 他创造了这个怪异的间隔,这种冲击, 使人们认识到是这些设计零件是 多么华丽而又庄重并且有着重要的功能。 我也想这样来介绍电子游戏。 摆脱了黏地毯和烟蒂 以及任何可能回忆起我们童年的东西。 我想让人们明白 这些是设计的重要形式。 某种程度上,电子游戏、字体以及其它任何东西, 都引导我们使人们理解 设计的更广泛的含义。
One of my dream acquisitions, which has been on hold for a few years but now will come back on the front burner, is a 747. I would like to acquire it, but without owning it. I don't want it to be at MoMA and possessed by MoMA. I want it to keep flying. So it's an acquisition where MoMA makes an arrangement with an airline and keeps the Boeing 747 flying.
我梦想的收购品之一, 已经搁置了好几年, 不过现在将要回到首要位置的, 是一架747。 我想要收购它,但不想拥有它。 我不想要它出现并被现代艺术博物馆所拥有, 我想要它继续飞翔。 这是一个收藏品,现代艺术博物馆与航空公司达成了一个协议, 让波音747继续飞翔。
And the same with the "@" sign that we acquired a few years ago. It was the first example of an acquisition of something that is in the public domain. And what I say to people, it's almost as if a butterfly were flying by and we captured the shadow on the wall, and just we're showing the shadow. So in a way, we're showing a manifestation of something that is truly important and that is part of our identity but that nobody can have. And it's too long to explain the acquisition, but if you want to go on the MoMA blog, there's a long post where I explain why it's such a great example of design.
同样,我们几年前收购的"@"符号 , 它是公共领域收藏品的 第一个例子。 我想对人们说的是,这几乎就像是 一只蝴蝶在飞舞, 我们抓住了它在墙壁上的影子, 而我们只是在展示这个影子。 换言之,我们正在展示一种 非常重要东西的表现, 这是我们身份的一部分,没人可以拥有。 要解释收购实在是需要太多的言语了。 不过如果你想上现代艺术博物馆的博客, 有一篇很长的帖子里我解释了为什么 它是这样一个设计很好的例子。
Along the way, I've had to burn a few chairs. You know? I've had to do away with a few concepts of design past. But I see that people are coming along, that the audiences, paradoxically, are much more responsive and much more understanding of this expansion of design than some of my colleagues are. Design is truly everywhere, and design is as important as anything, and I'm so glad that, because of its diversity and because of its centrality to our lives, many more people are coming to it as a profession, as a passion, and as, very simply, part of their own culture.
在这个过程中,我不得不烧掉几把椅子。你们知道吗? 我不得不废除过去设计的一些概念。 然而我看到人们正在进步, 相反的是,相比我的一些同事们而言,听众们 更加积极响应而且更加理解 这种设计的扩展。 设计是真的无处不在。 设计和任何事情一样重要。 我很欣慰,由于它的多样性, 由于它是我们生活中的中心, 越来越多的人们正在认识它, 作为一个专业,或者一种激情, 或者简单地作为自己修养的一部分。
Thank you very much.
非常感谢。
(Applause)
(掌声)