創造力時代初期模型—以建築三時期為例

Abstract

創造力研究在設計領域中一直具有高度的討論價值，有些研究者相信創造力跟個人特質有關，有的研究者則認為創造力應該建立在社會價值與社會認同之上。然而，創造力不可單單只放在個人或者社會來討論，創造力還有一個在社會、個人之外但卻與之絕對相關的觀點，那就是時代性。創造力的時代性：Zeitgeist，在創造力研究中時有所談，在建築領域尤其重要，像是文藝復興、現代主義，甚至我們身處的數位時代，在這些特定的時間點上，創造力大量出現，絕非偶然，其背後存在著隱藏的秩序與架構。

因此，本研究嘗試從心理學、社會學、認知科學的文獻與實驗分析中，尋找出創造力時代的構成因子，接著，以建築歷史中的三個創造力時期為例，去勾勒出一個就建築而論的「創造力時代」理論模型，以強化先前研究中創造力具有「時代性」論述。研究方法共分三大步驟：認知實驗、案例研究、口語分析實驗。首先，從分析式文獻推導開始，推論出創造力時代形成的八個因子：政治、經濟、群體、文化、科技、設計方法、媒材、形式，然後以認知實驗驗證之。接著，經由案例分析推論出六個現象，並將現象整合為初步的創造力時代模型。最後，透過口語分析實驗再次驗證模型的正確性。

然而，要驗證「創造力時代」這樣一個新觀點，僅以一博士論文探討之，必然會產生許多限制，包括研究對象、研究素材等等。本研究於一開始即開宗明義，說明此為一專注於建築領域的「創造力時代」模型，因而產生以建築設計者為導向的主觀意識，包括其構成模型因子的比重、關係等等，皆針對建築領域來論述，其餘領域尚未在本論文的討論範圍內。

本研究揭示了一個創造力的新觀念：時代性的創造力。並透過「創造力時代」理論模型的推衍過程，理解一個創造力的時代是如何形成，釐清了「創造力時代」產生的必要條件。在此，時代性的創造力超越了個人性與社會性的創造力，提供了一個綜觀時間；屬於建築歷史的創造力史觀，所牽涉的不只是創造力研究，也暗喻了一個新的建築史，並提供了提升當代建築創造力的機會。

The research in creativity has been always worthy to be discussed and reviewed in the field of design. Some researchers believe in the correlation between the creativity and individual characteristic. The others researchers believe that the creativity should be based on the value and the recognition of society. However, the creativity can not only be examined within the content of personal or social level, but has been viewed significantly in its relation with the current trend through different time of the history. It is also known as Zeitgeist in French. Zeitgeist, frequently mentioned in the research of creativity, is important especially in the domain of architecture. For examples, in the Renaissance, Modernism, and the Digital Age that we all live in, all these particular ages, creativity has shown its tremendous existence to people. Zeitgeist of creativity has not happened by coincidence. It has its hidden orders and has been well structured. Therefore, the research is trying to find the factors that induce the “Creative Age” to happen through the researches from the fields of psychology, sociology and cognition. Next, by showing the examples of the three major ages when creativity took the place, we can build up a theoretical model of “Creative Age” in order to emphasize on the statements provided regarding the relation between creativity and different ages.

The methodology is separated into three steps: the cognition experiment, case study and protocol analysis. Firstly, it started with the analytical review to infer the eight factors which the creativity is formed by. They are politics, economics, group interaction, culture, technology, design method, media and form. We then used the cognition experiment to prove our presumptions. Next, the six phenomena were analyzed and use them to integrate the preliminary model of creativity age. Finally, the model can be examined and verified by protocol analysis. However, by proving a new idea such as “Creative Age” in a PHD thesis, there would be many limitations existed such as research subjects and materials. In this case, the study has clearly stressed in the beginning that the model of creative age solely focus on the domain of architecture rather than the other fields. There would be unavoidable subjective ideas including the weight and relation of factors which the model is formed with. The thesis has disclosed a new concept: the creative age. Through the process of inferring the theoretical model of creative age, we could comprehend how the “Creative Age” has been created and the essential requirements of its forming. In this study, creativity involves interpersonal and social-culture processes as well. It refers a concept of Time-Series in creativity, an architectural history about creativity. As a result, this thesis is not only about a research in creativity but also providing a proper way to expand the quality and quantity of creativity in architecture.